It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Run-Up to Iran War: Track the Indicators

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:27 PM
And now the spin machine kicks into high gear with Cheney saying that we cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons (even though aggressive estimates still put the development of such a capability at least 5 years off for Iran).

Cheney: Iran must not have nuclear weapons

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:27 AM
Thumpa, thumpa, thumpa go the war drums...

US says Iran has enough uranium gas to make 10 nuclear weapons

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:08 AM
And it keeps coming. Anyone see this? Doesn't the oil bourse happen on March 20th?

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:26 AM
Very clear and well thought out post.

You do what I credit very few with being able to do-step back and look at the big picture.

What you did was look at all the facts and come to a logical conclusion based on the facts, not your or others passion.

For this reason, I gave you a vote for way above.

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:17 PM
I also had to vote -
It is an outside logical look that seems to be unfolding at this very moment.
Not that I'm paranoid, because that's no way to live, but I do see some scary times for the world ahead and its sad.

Thanks again for the well laid out thread.


posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:17 PM
We are a week and a half away from seeing how this all plays out. This will be very interesting to watch.

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 06:24 PM
Nothing will happen quickly. The UNSC will start by just demanding that Iran fully comply with the IAEA within, say, 2 months or face "further action", but it won't be anything like an iron-clad Resolution. Iran will not budge and continue to claim it's within their right to enrich uranium - the US will continue to put pressure on them. Then just before the UNSC deadline Iran will no doubt make some play along the lines of another "deal" with Russia, with a view to splitting the UNSC and buying more time. They may also come up with an idea such as letting inspectors back in and giving them greater access than before to show they have nothing to hide. The US will of course reject this plan, but China and Russia will want to take them up on it. I suspect they may agree to an official UN Resolution stating that Iran must fully cooperate with the IAEA within a 6-12 month time period or face tough sanctions and/or possible military action. Iran will agree and the whole process will start again.

I have a feeling this will drag on a while longer yet. The UN can't do anything quickly. If Iran do something foolish or Israel develop an itchy trigger finger something may happen quicker.

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 08:14 PM
The world would not collapse because the US currency went down the drain, europes economy is not 100% dependent on the US, it can still draw what it needs from within, or can go to south america and start trading with them since at that point they would no longer be under US control and would be looking for buyers. Cuba would FLOURISH, they would now have 0 restrictions on them and would start exporting whatever they could and make some good money and pull itself up into a rather strong island nation. If the US collapsed China would hurt, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and a few asian countries as well as Mexico and Canada. Other than that the repricussions would be minimal or if there was any could be overcome quickly by other nations. China would be able to yank itself up by waging war on EVERYONE that was not an ally in the pacific and take over land and food production since the US would be out of the way. Also the US military power would sink so low that it would be considered a JOKE, there would be no money to maintain it anymore while inside the US stores would flood wish junk as corporations try and make money. That or they jump ship, we sink, they live to fight another day only in a new country. They have 0 loyalty to anyone other than themselves so it would not be beneath them to do so.

Anyway back to Iran:
Things are heating up, if the middle east was ever a powder keg it is now. Iraq was one waiting to happen and the US lit the fuse, now the US has lit the fuse on a nation far more powerfull than Iraq would ever have been. Ironically when you start invading other people they go to great measures to make sure you are kept out. Hence why Russia went for the nuke followed by everyone else. Now its Iran trying to do it and the more threats thrown the more shall we say "explosive" the situation could become. Cant wait for the next 2 months to pass and see what happens. Interesting how we grow up thinking nothing like this will happen in our lifetime, we might actually get to see armegeddon!!! Or the total downfall of the US withing only 10 years or less..... pathetic... yes... but true. Every empire has its points when it must face a true test, the US is failing at its test like Rome, Ghenis Khan, Kublai Khan, Crusaders, Japan, Germany, and all the other empires. The odds are SEVERLY against the US even with technology. If the US was the one with 1/3 the worlds population not China there would be a GOOOOD chance it would survive but it doesnt. A strong economy wont save you in this world let alone a military.
Dig your bunkers while there is still time, even if it doesnt happen at least you are ready for when something does happen.

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 05:35 PM
Pah rum pa pum pum...

U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday called Iran a "grave national security concern," but said he sought a diplomatic way to cap its nuclear goals.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said diplomacy must continue, but Iranian leaders should not be allowed to "play for time."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed to pursue Iran's case through the Security Council, saying a failure by Tehran to meet its global obligations would lead to "a serious situation."

The International Energy Agency said it would be able to plug the gap in global oil supply for several months if Iran, the world's No. 4 oil exporter, halted oil exports.

"The IEA would be capable of compensating for a number of months," President Claude Mandil said. "According to my knowledge, OPEC would not be able to compensate in totality."

from: Bush says diplomacy way to tackle Iran

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 03:51 PM
The sabre rattling and blame game continue with Bush contending that Iran is responsible for roadside bombs in Iraq:

US President George W. Bush directly linked Tehran to roadside bombings against US forces in Iraq, stepping up his criticisms of Iran amid a tense standoff over its nuclear program.

"Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq," Bush said in a speech.

"Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions, along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran," he said.

from Bush ties Iran to roadside bombs in Iraq

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:04 AM
6 days to go until the 20th. I am so interested to see if the States are going to let Iran change the oil trade to the Euro or if somthing will happen to provoke a war against Iran. This is going to be very interesting to watch.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:52 AM
god, imagine if hilary becomes president. well fuhr you may be american but if your president is willing to start another war which will be like impossible to win with so much casualties than i say go for it, after all iraq war is getting boring isnt it?.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Mehran
god, imagine if hilary becomes president. well fuhr you may be american but if your president is willing to start another war which will be like impossible to win with so much casualties than i say go for it, after all iraq war is getting boring isnt it?.

Actually I am A Canadian. I dont agree with War at all but I know thats what the bankers want. I know a war with Iran will lead to the downfall of America as the econimy in the states is on pins and needles. I believe in the Illuminati and the NWO and think this conflict will get them the Police state in the USA. War sucks but it will get the bankers/NWO agenda across and am so interested in watching them pull the wool over the average persons eyes. People are sheep and when the economy crashes the people will do whatever the government wants in order to live in past glory again. This includes the police state in the USA.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:09 AM

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Fuhr86]

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:05 PM
You saved me a crap load of typing.. I was about to write the same thing almost.. I have some stuff to add but I want to do it in another thread because there have been some more developments over the last few days.. big ones.. hope no one minds.. what I'll do dude, is mention this thread in the one I'm going to get organised.. its my project this evening.

But good stuff, glad to see everyone is keeping up to date on the issues and events, because... uh... this is why ATS exists.. and not only that but I think this might be one of the few times any of us get the chance to talk about these things again... I think its going to be worse then we can imagine.

I'm actually scared.

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:49 AM
Very good and thought out post. I am obviously new to ATS and although I dont agree with some of what is posted, that is the beauty of forums such as this where we can discuss and debate. I feel you have a very good theory and was able to back it up with a well thought out post.

It will be interesting and possibly very frightning to see what occurs in the next few weeks. Being a former US Marine I have fought for my country, but that does not mean that I like war or cheer war. Infact its just the opposite, I hate war, but at the same time, countries need people who can overcome their fears and biases to serve the greater good. In my case it was my country and I would do it again if called although I doubt I will because of my age.

The world is about to change and not necessarly for the good, the question is this: can we as a society overall overcome what may happen and still survive?

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:22 PM
To those following this thread, please do not take this post as a retraction of my initial contentions, but simply a modification of the dates. New stuff is afoot WRT the Oil Bourse:

Iranian oil bourse hits wall

Despite repeated reports over the past 18 months or so that the planned bourse would finally open for business on March 20, 2006 -- and go head to head with the New York Mercantile Exchange and the ICE Futures Exchange in London -- the start date has been postponed by at least several months and maybe more than a year.

"In the middle of 2006, we are able to start the bourse," Mohammad Asemipur, special adviser on the project to Iran's Oil Minister, said when reached in Tehran. The plan is to trade petrochemical products first, with a crude oil contract coming last, a rollout that likely will take three years, he said.

"You can rest assured, there will not be a crude oil contract, Gulf-based, in my opinion, within a year -- and that would be really pushing it," Mr. Cook, a former director of ICE's predecessor, the International Petroleum Exchange, said when reached in Scotland.

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:16 PM
Interesting developments going on, wonder if the war drums got a bit loud for Iran?

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Striker8441

Being a former US Marine I have fought for my country, but that does not mean that I like war or cheer war.

I know this is OT, but had to comment on this.

You weren't discharged OTH, were you? With the exception of OTH, "Once a Marine, always a Marine".

(No such thing as an 'ex' Marine)

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:33 PM
Add another talking head to the din coming from the current administration regarding Iran. John Bolton:

Bolton compares Iran threat to Sept. 11 attacks

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, Wednesday compared the threat from Iran’s nuclear programs to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

“Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,” Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline. “I think it’s just facing reality. It’s not a happy reality, but it’s reality and if you don’t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.”

Bolton ratcheted up the rhetoric as the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council failed again to reach agreement on how to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions after a fifth round of negotiations.

<< 1    3 >>

log in